FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 18 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHU MIN CHEN, No. 12-70756
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-903-113
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 8, 2015**
Pasadena, California
Before: NOONAN, WARDLAW, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Shu Min Chen, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of
China, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
Convention Against Torture. An immigration judge (“IJ”) denied all relief, and the
Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. Chen petitions this court for review of
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
the Board’s decision. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the
petition.
Chen argues that the Board’s affirmance of the IJ’s adverse credibility
finding is unsupported by substantial evidence. But Chen testified unequivocally
that he was fired from his job at a watch factory on account of political opinion in
1990, and later testified that he continued to work for the watch factory’s service
company until 1996. In addition, Chen resided in housing provided by the watch
factory until 2006. In light of these inconsistencies regarding a fact material to
Chen’s claim, substantial evidence supported the Board’s conclusion that Chen’s
testimony as a whole was not credible. See Lopez-Umanzor v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d
1049, 1059 (9th Cir. 2005). Chen’s inconsistent testimony regarding whether he
personally signed his visa application further supported the adverse credibility
finding. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1046 (9th Cir. 2010).
Substantial evidence also supports the Board’s alternative conclusion that
Chen’s three-day detention and brief beatings by police in 2006 did not amount to
persecution. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1017–18, 1019–20 (9th Cir.
2006).
Chen argues that he is eligible for relief under the Convention Against
Torture even if his testimony is not credible. However, Chen does not point out
2
what specific data in the State Department country report demonstrates that he will
more likely than not be tortured if returned to the People’s Republic of China. By
failing to support his contention with specific argument, Chen has abandoned the
contention. See Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1992).
PETITION DENIED.
3